Court dismisses assault charges against daycare workers, orders child to pay legal costs

[NukkuMatti]

Source: https://yle.fi/a/74-20081045


How in a civilized country can you possibly order a 5 year old to pay 35.000€
I guess we are missing some information here.
Possibly he/she (or the parents) will file for bankruptcy (of the child) immediately? Nobody get's paid and the workers have to pay their own bill (that sucks).

As a minor you cannot even get a loan from the bank.

So just brainstorming here: either the court was deranged in ordering this, or the child is a rich kid with rich parents that had a lousy lawyer and needs to pay from a possible inheritance or other fortune the kid owns.

I wonder what the DVV would say about these parents being good guardians of that child's money (if rich) and possibly being liable for the financial damage due to mismanagement of the child's assets in pursuing such a frivolous court case (taken into account that the police and prosecutor did not see enough evidence to prosecute the workers).

I wonder what you guys and girls can come up with as a response on this article..

[FinlandGirl]

Source: https://yle.fi/a/74-20081045


How in a civilized country can you possibly order a 5 year old to pay 35.000€
I guess we are missing some information here.
Possibly he/she (or the parents) will file for bankruptcy (of the child) immediately? Nobody get's paid and the workers have to pay their own bill (that sucks).

As a minor you cannot even get a loan from the bank.

As a minor you can do many things, like suing someone else, when your guardian is acting on your behalf.

So just brainstorming here: either the court was deranged in ordering this, or the child is a rich kid with rich parents that had a lousy lawyer and needs to pay from a possible inheritance or other fortune the kid owns.

The side who lost at court was ordered to pay the expenses of the winning side.

For this decision it does not matter who the losing side was, or whether sufficient money is available.

[NukkuMatti]

Source: https://yle.fi/a/74-20081045


How in a civilized country can you possibly order a 5 year old to pay 35.000€
I guess we are missing some information here.
Possibly he/she (or the parents) will file for bankruptcy (of the child) immediately? Nobody get's paid and the workers have to pay their own bill (that sucks).

As a minor you cannot even get a loan from the bank.

As a minor you can do many things, like suing someone else, when your guardian is acting on your behalf.

So just brainstorming here: either the court was deranged in ordering this, or the child is a rich kid with rich parents that had a lousy lawyer and needs to pay from a possible inheritance or other fortune the kid owns.

The side who lost at court was ordered to pay the expenses of the winning side.

For this decision it does not matter who the losing side was, or whether sufficient money is available.

Besides the open doors, that was not the point. A constructive comment would be more interesting than to state the obvious.

Further more, the court is not obliged to decide to have the losing party to pay the costs of the other party, this is at the discretion of the court.
A child cannot take a loan from the bank even if the guardians try to, you would need permission from the DVV and they will refuse.
Therefore the absurdity of this ruling, which is what I asked your comment on.

Example:
If the amount is left at Ulosotto for the next 13 years, it will grow due to interest = 7% plus ECB rate to at least double that amount depending on the ECB rate to about 70.000€
So, best thing would be to declare the child's bankruptcy. Everyone else loses, so what is the point of this decision?
That was basically what I asked to comment on.

I would encourage the parents to appeal if there is any shred of evidence, otherwise they most likely would not have brought the case anyway.

You see how easy that was to give a comment that actually discusses the issue instead of giving an open door reply which is basically common knowledge in Finland (at least to me).

So I encourage you to try again (addressed to Finlandgirl, my wannabe date).

[betelgeuse]

Further more, the court is not obliged to decide to have the losing party to pay the costs of the other party, this is at the discretion of the court.
A child cannot take a loan from the bank even if the guardians try to, you would need permission from the DVV and they will refuse.
Therefore the absurdity of this ruling, which is what I asked your comment on.

Court costs are not at the discretion of the court but instead legislation has detailed rules about it.

Example:
If the amount is left at Ulosotto for the next 13 years, it will grow due to interest = 7% plus ECB rate to at least double that amount depending on the ECB rate to about 70.000€
So, best thing would be to declare the child's bankruptcy. Everyone else loses, so what is the point of this decision?
That was basically what I asked to comment on.

Finland does not have US style personal bankruptcy.

[NukkuMatti]

Further more, the court is not obliged to decide to have the losing party to pay the costs of the other party, this is at the discretion of the court.
A child cannot take a loan from the bank even if the guardians try to, you would need permission from the DVV and they will refuse.
Therefore the absurdity of this ruling, which is what I asked your comment on.

Court costs are not at the discretion of the court but instead legislation has detailed rules about it.

Example:
If the amount is left at Ulosotto for the next 13 years, it will grow due to interest = 7% plus ECB rate to at least double that amount depending on the ECB rate to about 70.000€
So, best thing would be to declare the child's bankruptcy. Everyone else loses, so what is the point of this decision?
That was basically what I asked to comment on.

Finland does not have US style personal bankruptcy.

I should have been more clear and need to rephrase the "discretion of the court" . An opinion piece from a judge at Yle.fi some years ago, stated that according to this judge, the court does not necessarily need to award reimbursement of legal costs if the difference between financial means between the two parties is significant. For the precise text I would need to search the original article... which might take some time.
Anyway I had this article in mind, when I made the remark, maybe you know about case law where this actually was used.

I am curious how personal bankruptcy would work in Finland then, however I guess in the end it does not matter so much anyway, because there is a time limit on debts to be recovered. (something about 15 years? or 20? ) with the amount of time possibly depending on business to customer or private to private. Also the amount to be recovered cannot be deducted from a certain amount of salary / income / asset when too low, like a lower limit, this would mean that if the child would go study after school, his income will still be too low to pay, after this he or she might still go to army and we all know that pay is not much either. So there is a big chance this amount will never be reclaimed..

Which brings me back to the point again on how in earth to fine the child, I would say Fine the parents instead, they are the ones that brought the lawsuit (even if it was in name of the child), they are also the ones that raise the child and probably cause the disturbing behavior of the child that made the actions of the care givers necessary.

As said, there is very little background information to go on for me here, hence the attempt to a discussion. Maybe someone else has more details?

[betelgeuse]

I should have been more clear and need to rephrase the "discretion of the court" . An opinion piece from a judge at Yle.fi some years ago, stated that according to this judge, the court does not necessarily need to award reimbursement of legal costs if the difference between financial means between the two parties is significant. For the precise text I would need to search the original article... which might take some time.
Anyway I had this article in mind, when I made the remark, maybe you know about case law where this actually was used.

The standard to deviate is manifestly unreasonable (ilmeisen kohtuutonta).

https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bit ... _16_SO.pdf

The daycare workers are unlikely to be wealthy. Generally their income is quite low. Presumably the court evaluated the facts.

I am curious how personal bankruptcy would work in Finland then, however I guess in the end it does not matter so much anyway, because there is a time limit on debts to be recovered. (something about 15 years? or 20? ) with the amount of time possibly depending on business to customer or private to private. Also the amount to be recovered cannot be deducted from a certain amount of salary / income / asset when too low, like a lower limit, this would mean that if the child would go study after school, his income will still be too low to pay, after this he or she might still go to army and we all know that pay is not much either. So there is a big chance this amount will never be reclaimed..

It's just generally not possible. The debts will eventually expire. There's some relief available via debt adjustment but the conditions are quite strict.

https://oikeus.fi/talousjavelkaneuvonta ... iment.html#

Which brings me back to the point again on how in earth to fine the child, I would say Fine the parents instead, they are the ones that brought the lawsuit (even if it was in name of the child), they are also the ones that raise the child and probably cause the disturbing behavior of the child that made the actions of the care givers necessary.

It's not a fine. The point is to make the other party whole. The child might, for example, receive inheritance that can be collected from.

As said, there is very little background information to go on for me here, hence the attempt to a discussion. Maybe someone else has more details?

You can always request the documents from the court if you want to read fully.

[FinlandGirl]

pursuing such a frivolous court case (taken into account that the police and prosecutor did not see enough evidence to prosecute the workers)

I should have been more clear and need to rephrase the "discretion of the court" . An opinion piece from a judge at Yle.fi some years ago, stated that according to this judge, the court does not necessarily need to award reimbursement of legal costs if the difference between financial means between the two parties is significant.

Daycare workers are earning barely more than half the average salary in Finland.

Each of the 6 daycare workers who were victims in what you call a "frivolous court case" had around 3 months of salary in legal costs.

[NukkuMatti]

You can always request the documents from the court if you want to read fully.

Thanks for the constructive answer,

I have to clarify one part about fine the parents, I would rather need to say there, let the parents be liable for the legal costs of the other party, because they made the decision to file suit.

It just seems unfair to slap a debt onto a 5 year old of 35.000€ while the small child has not even any idea why or what all is about.
This is basically the root of my disbelieve, regardless of how the law is read or explained. It just feels wrong!

Again, thanks for the hint, but of course this was just a discussion and requesting documents from the court will most likely be subject to a charge, which is, with my income, not worth it, for a discussion on a forum.

See my newest topic. viewtopic.php?p=607718#p607718

[betelgeuse]

I have to clarify one part about fine the parents, I would rather need to say there, let the parents be liable for the legal costs of the other party, because they made the decision to file suit.

It just seems unfair to slap a debt onto a 5 year old of 35.000€ while the small child has not even any idea why or what all is about.
This is basically the root of my disbelieve, regardless of how the law is read or explained. It just feels wrong!

There's a legimate need for parents to be able to decide things for their child without being personally liable. If the suit was frivolous, then it's a matter between the child and the parents.

Again, thanks for the hint, but of course this was just a discussion and requesting documents from the court will most likely be subject to a charge, which is, with my income, not worth it, for a discussion on a forum.

It's free to ask a copy by email.